More From The New Liberal Lion

Do I really have to keep explaining the Five Minute Rule to you people regarding Senator Aqua Buddha and his father, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!)? Here, on the subject of a woman's right to prove based on her right to privacy derived from the protections of the 14th Amendment, the former demonstrates that we are all at the 5:00:07 mark as regards his career as the newest champion of civil liberties.

"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward," Paul said in a statement. " The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress."

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

You can trust him, too, because when I want precise interpretations of constitutional doctrine, I always consult my self-accredited ophthalmologist.

"The Court then admitted that if the personhood of an unborn baby is established, the right to abort 'collapses,' for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14] Amendment,'" he said.

Here (I think) is the passage in Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinionin Roe v. Wade to which Senator Aqua Buddha is referring. You will note that he only quotes the first half of the paragraph, leaving off the part in which Blackmun, writing for the majority, essentially blows up his opinion 40 years before he delivered it.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

In other words, his new law is no more valid on its face than the state laws that Roe overturned, and I don't think there's an exception for the constititutional doctrine of How Will It Play In Iowa?